Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [19th May] as relates to the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] be now considered.
	Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Philip Dunne: I thank the Minister. In that case, it seems more likely that applications will have to be made to two distributors to achieve the same level of funding for the projects to which I have referred.
	I am especially concerned about the lottery's impact on major restorations of heritage monuments and features, for example, the Teme Weirs trust in Ludlow and the pending restoration of Ludlow's town walls, to which I have already referred in this place. Without equivalence of allocation to the Heritage Lottery Fund, it is unlikely that such projects will be completed. The trustees of the new Big Lottery Fund are unlikely to give much priority to heritage projects, as they will consider that they are already well provided for due to the continuance of the Heritage Lottery Fund.
	My second concern is the key question of trust, a subject that my party raised during the general election. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) referred to the increased participation in the lottery over the past couple of years. Continued strength of revenue and funding for good causes obviously relies to a considerable degree on public confidence in the lottery and in the awards made by its distributing bodies. By introducing the potential for Government influence on the Big Lottery Fund, the Bill could undermine that confidence, which in turn will undermine revenues.
	To give a local example, it is, regrettably, well known in my constituency that the Shropshire hospitals NHS trust is sitting on a colossal deficit, rumoured in the press to be close to £20 million. I am delighted to say, however, that on 24 February 2005 a brand new MRI scanner was delivered to the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, funded in part by voluntary donation and the lottery, but I regret to tell the House that the machine has yet to be turned on. It is well known in Shropshire that the MRI scanner is sitting in a purpose-built facility in the hospital, but that the trust does not have enough funding to use it.People in Shropshire suspect that if lottery funding can be used to supply equipment to the NHS, welcome though that equipment is, it may be used to help run the equipment in the future, which will undermine confidence in the lottery and participation in the game.
	As I am from a rural constituency, I should like to endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), who said that confidence would also be undermined if funding were awarded to causes that bear no relevance, or seem to bear no relevance, to people in the UK. If, as my hon. Friend said, we are funding guinea pig producers in Peru, that will not inspire confidence in the lottery distribution system.
	My third point may relate to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am concerned about access to information about lottery funding. After awards have been made and projects completed, it is possible to obtain full access to information about where allocations were made, but sometimes such information is not made readily available on projects where, although a decision has been made to allocate funding, it has not yet all been supplied. I am thinking of a case brought to my attention by a fellow councillor on South Shropshire district council: a substantial sum has allegedly been given to a local voluntary organisation, but he has had difficulty securing information on the project. The organisation in question is the Ludlow youth forum, which does some very useful work, especially in drug rehabilitation. My concern is that we have had great difficulty finding out how much money has been provided to that organisation by lottery and other bodies. To raise that matter in this debate might be to stray somewhat from the Bill, but I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me on the subject, or mention it in his winding-up speech. I hope to speak in Committee about the three concerns that I have raised in this debate.

Martin Horwood: My background is in charity fundraising. I was the director of fundraising for the Alzheimer's Society. At times, I have spent days, nights and what seemed years of my life completing applications to various national lottery distributor bodies. At times, I have found them irritating, bureaucratic and arbitrary in their rule change—but still, in the end, overwhelmingly a good thing.
	Quite a lot of irritation and bureaucracy will be suffered for the several millions of pounds that the Alzheimer's Society raises for carers and people with dementia from the national lottery, but it is worth doing. It seems that in this place it is not always easy to pay compliments to our opponents, but I should pay a compliment to the Conservative Government of John Major. Despite the irritations and the bureaucracy of the system, the national lottery distributors that were established were overwhelmingly a good thing. They were cheap to apply to and they were thoughtful in that they spent a great deal of time talking through, with applicants, exactly who would benefit from projects and how those projects would work. They were supportive of applicants, especially those with inexperience; they considered difficult and unpopular causes; and they had a good track record in supporting those causes.
	Many of the fears that were attached to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 were that it would cannibalise existing fundraising. Those fears turned out to be unfounded. At the time, some charities were dependent on scratch card income. There was a great deal of publicity that they would lose money, but so much publicity was raised that their funds increased. Even they did well out of the Act.
	The issue of additionality was mentioned during consideration of the 1993 legislation. As I rather unkindly mentioned to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), there were provisions in that Act to give the Secretary of State powers of direction. In practice, the Millennium Commission, the National Lottery Charities Board and the other distributors have acted independently for most of their history. That was much appreciated by those of us who were working in the sector. We appreciated the independence from Government that they were able to exercise.
	Since the Labour party has come into Government we have watched with increasing concern the progress of the so-called reforms of the national lottery distribution. First, there was the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund, which seemed to us to be established purely to meet Government priorities—health, education and the environment. Those are worthy things but they have been used, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) said, to support state-run and state-funded institutions, which was never the idea of the national lottery. The lottery was there to support new causes with new money and new projects with new money.
	When the earliest funding priorities of the New Opportunities Fund were announced at a Labour party conference, it was clear that political control was starting to play a major role in the way in which the funds were distributed. Then we noted, with even more concern, that when the Millennium Commission was wound up it was merged with the New Opportunities Fund. We have seen a gradual increase the percentage of lottery funds under the more direct control of the Secretary of State. It has grown from 0 per cent. in 1993 to 13.5 per cent. in 1998, to 32 per cent. today and to 50 per cent. in the proposals that are before us. Earlier, the Minister was talking about moving forward, but it is clear in which direction the Government are moving—eventually, presumably, it is towards 100 per cent. control by the Secretary of State. Our fears have been realised by many recent announcements. For instance, there was the decision to fund the school dinners programme. That is worthy, but money will be stolen from lottery funds.
	I was reassured by what the Minister said, namely, that there would be a departure from practice in the New Opportunities Fund, and from now on—I think that I am quoting him correctly—all important decisions would be taken by the Big Lottery Fund. That would be desirable, but we do not see that provision in the Bill. Given the Government's record, we need that provision in the Bill. Otherwise, that lottery funding becomes a tax-supporting Government policy. It may be voluntary, but it will still be a tax. That will gradually undermine ticket sales.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Horwood) responds, I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) that he should remember that when he uses the second person he is referring to the Chair. He should be referring to the third person. I might add that interventions are always better if they are brief.

Charles Walker: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way because it gives me an opportunity to put the record straight. The people whom he claims might protest about not having MRSA scanners have already paid for them through national taxation. Indeed, they have paid for them through record taxation, which the Government have imposed on them. The money that the Under-Secretary claims should go into the national health service should go to smaller charities, voluntary groups, organisations and those people who are in the community trying to do great work. It is not a case of one or the other but a matter of the Government diverting the funds where taxpayers' money should be spent—for example, on such scanners.

Hugo Swire: As a number of confusing statements are coming out surrounding the Bill. As far as I am aware, Macmillan nurses are a charity, so I would be happy to put out a press statement tomorrow saying that they would get more money under the Conservatives' proposals. Given the confusion about additionality in particular, will the Minister undertake to speak with his Whips to ensure that we get more than the prescribed four days in Committee?

James Purnell: The hon. Gentleman started off by wishing us all the best with the Olympics decision on 6 July, and the Government are united in support of our bid. I know that both main Opposition parties support us and that he does, too. If he wills the ends, he must will the means to have a fantastic Olympic as well.
	On additionality, it is clear that the distinction should not be between the causes that we fund, but the projects. The attention of distributors should be focused on funding projects that are innovative, that pilot new developments, that do things that Government could not otherwise do, and that could bring organisations together in a way that Government might otherwise find difficult. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend that that will continue under the Bill.
	Let me deal with the issue of Government control, which was raised by the hon. Members for Cheltenham and for Hornchurch. It was claimed that the Government were seeking to control grants. That is the opposite of the fact. What happened was that people raised concerns about NOF having prescribed programmes set by the Secretary of State. We have listened to those concerns and, therefore, under the Big Lottery Fund, those decisions will be much further away from Government. The Government will set some high-level priorities and then it will be up to the Big Lottery Fund to formulate the programmes, as set out in the Bill. If we consider the new programmes put forward by the Big Lottery Fund, such as children's play, parks, support for the voluntary sector infrastructure, we will recognise that those are clearly additional and clearly welcome. I assume that the hon. Member for Hornchurch supports them. The whole thrust of the proposals is to put distributors further away from Government and closer to the public, and to give the public a much greater say in how these funds are spent. That is exactly right—it should be the public, not politicians, who have the keenest influence on how the money is spent.
	I thought that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was slightly churlish to say that the £65 million being spent through the People's Millions was a small amount of money. Most people would say that having £65 million allocated by the public is a very good initiative, and it is just the start of what we want to see—we want widespread consultation through citizens juries, through the telephone service and through whatever ways that distributors think are appropriate to ensure that they can properly reflect what people want. Therefore, the Bill puts distributors further from Government, much closer to the public and much further away from some Conservative Members' views, which we have established today.

Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on procuring this debate. It is no coincidence that Lancashire Members on both sides of the House are listening to this debate tonight. I shall expand on that in a moment.
	Private soldier, trooper, fusilier, guardsman, lance corporal.—I do not know what the public think those ranks are. Are these mature, developed, highly educated individuals? No, they are not. They are the work horses of the British Army. I commanded 900 of them; 670 were privates and lance corporals. The average age of that gang from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire was 19½. Most of my private soldiers were straight out of training. They were a little over 18. I asked those boys to go to Bosnia to do a difficult job. They did a fine job, but they faced nothing like the requirements that the soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, the Coldstream Guards and the King's Royal Hussars face in theatre at the moment.
	It is instructive to notice that Private Beharry has won the nation's most coveted award, the Victoria cross. Guardsman Wakefield has just been blown to pieces by an improvised explosive device. Lance Corporal Brackenbury was killed in action leading his team just outside Basra. We ask a terrific amount of these young men. They are exclusively young men; there is no room on the front line at the moment for women. We also ask a huge amount of the non-commissioned and commissioned officers who command them.
	I know that it is a truism, but command is a lonely business. It is a demanding job to get things right when one has youngsters of this ilk around who can get things terribly wrong. One of my lance corporals some 25 miles away from my battalion headquarters in Bosnia got hold of some slivovic, got drunk, took a pistol and, for reasons best known to him, shot at one of my interpreters, and missed. He probably should have been charged for bad musketry, but there we are. The point was that the soldier committed a crime. He was arrested and tried under the Army Act 1955. At no moment did I, as his commanding officer, feel that my future, my career, my judgment or my integrity was in doubt. I recommended that that soldier went forward to court martial, and he was duly punished.
	It is instructive and interesting that next door to me was a battalion that did not come from Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. It got things dreadfully wrong on a number of occasions. At the end of its tour its commanding officer was told that there would be no decoration or promotion for him. He had made a bad job of commanding the battalion. The soldiers under his command who faced discipline under the Army Act did just that. He was not tried; he was not dragged in front of the court—he paid the price in another way. Those conditions were small beer compared to those faced by the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. It is a fine regiment. I had the honour to command one of its companies under my operational command in Bosnia, and I had nothing but admiration for its men.
	Regiments do not change their spots over 300 years. That regiment was constantly attacked—by gunfire, improvised explosive devices or ambushes. Many of its soldiers were wounded and one of its officers was killed. They had the difficult job not of Telic 1, which involved fighting a clearly defined enemy, but of on the one hand dealing with terrorists, insurgents and enemies, and on the other helping to rebuild the country and deal with destitute men, women and children and the appalling problem of prisoner handling—all this on about four hours sleep a day, probably in two two-hour bursts. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know if you have experienced that, but if you are 18 or 19 and you are getting four hours kip a day it really is not good. I have experienced it. On top of that, they were operating in temperatures between 40 and 50o C. It was not easy.
	What was the judgment on that battalion at the end of their time in Basra? A handful of mentions in dispatches, the first military cross to a warrant officer that the regiment had won in 40 years, and the commanding officer not just given the distinguished service order, but promoted to full colonel at one of the earliest ages possible, earmarked for higher command in the Army, and told that he would probably get an operational brigade in the near future. Colonel Jorge Mendonca—I know him well—is and was no fool. He was a fine officer who led a fine battalion well.
	I wonder, to echo the points that were made by the hon. Member for Chorley, just how a commanding officer can be found culpable for failing to supervise soldiers who were some several miles away from him. Again, it did not happen to me eight or nine years ago when I was commanding in Bosnia. I absolutely echo the point so presciently made by the hon. Gentleman. If one is going to charge a commanding officer under the Army Acts and thus the International Criminal Court Act, where does the responsibility stop? The brigade commander told the commanding officer what to do. The divisional commander told the brigade commander what to do. Are they not equally guilty?
	For not one moment do I condone whatever happened to Baha Musa. If a crime was committed, the soldiers and those who were responsible must be dealt with, but I fail to understand how the International Criminal Court Act can be invoked when we have perfectly adequate Army Acts that should be able to deal with this. Those who are thought to be directly responsible for these actions should be brought before a court martial and tried by the officers and the Judge Advocate General, who understands the conditions under which these men are asked to serve.
	The Army exists on something called mission command. It is a military creed—a doctrine—and essentially all it means is that a commander says to a subordinate, "This is what I want you to do. These are the resources that you have to do the job and these are the limitations on that job. I want it done by a certain time, with the expenditure of a certain amount of ammunition." That subordinate is then told, "Go, my boy. Don't ask questions. If I tell you to capture hill 60 and the enemy is not on hill 60, press on to hill 70; take it. Do not ask questions. Use your initiative; drive; succeed; minimise your casualties; defeat the enemy."
	One simply cannot charge a commander with failing to supervise, having for his whole professional career taught him to apply mission command. Mission command applies just as much to the handling of prisoners as it does to the capture of an objective. If this criminal action goes forward, at a stroke we shall undermine the theology, the creed and the operational doctrine of the British Army. What it means is that commanding officers, company commanders and the other commanders at all chains of command will simply say, "No. I will not take this risk; I will not use my initiative because if I do, I may well end up going to court. Even if my superiors under the Army Acts find me not guilty or find that there is no case to answer, I can still be tried under the International Criminal Court Act."
	It is instructive to note, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I welcome you to your place—that with the police recently, when two armed officers have been charged with shooting an unarmed man, who I gather had a table leg under his arm at the time, other armed officers have, in a military phrase, refused to soldier. They have thrown down their weapons or they have threatened to throw down their weapons and say, "If you wish us to go on the streets, prepared to use lethal force, you must give us some protection." The Trooper Williams case and the case of Colonel Jorge Mendonca take that assurance away at a stroke. If the Minister wishes our regiments and our soldiers to do wonderful, amazing, valorous and chivalrous things, we must give them our support.
	Too often, we ask boys to do men's jobs. They deserve not just our respect and admiration but our support. If the case of Colonel Jorge Mendonca comes to the conclusion that I fear it might, not only will that support be missing, but we shall have sadly and sorely let down every brave man that takes up arms in the name of the Queen.

Don Touhig: I do not think that there is a change. The point that the hon. Gentleman has made from his own experiences shows that so far as our operations are concerned, and given the guidelines and the rules by which we operate our forces in areas of conflict, we are operating properly. I think that the definition that the hon. Gentleman gave earlier in his contribution demonstrated that from his personal experience.
	It is not the first time that the ICC has had jurisdiction over our forces in operations. The personnel of every NATO state during the Balkans conflict were subject to the similar criminal jurisdiction of the ICC on the former Yugoslavia. In that specific case, however, the tribunal had primacy over national courts, unlike the ICC where national courts would be given the first option to prosecute.
	British service personnel receive training and guidance at an appropriate level—a high level—of the principles and the application of the laws of armed conflict, at various stages in their careers. Suitable refresher training in these matters is also given to personnel before deployment in operations. Our experience of the ICC since its inception has not altered the views that we took at that time. We remain an enthusiastic supporter of the court, committed to its principles and confident in its approach to international law.
	I can confirm that the ICC prosecutor wrote to Her Majesty's ambassador in The Hague in 2003 forwarding a complaint made by the Athens Bar Association concerning British military operations in Iraq. The Government have provided a formal reply to the prosecutor, giving the response to the allegations and setting out UK national procedures for the investigation of such allegations. We believe this reply to be a convincing rebuttal of the allegations. However, there have been a number of press reports recently that up to 15 British soldiers face prosecution under the ICC. These reports concern the alleged torture and death of an Iraqi civilian who died in British military custody. I can confirm that allegations against the soldiers have been investigated by the Royal Military Police and that evidence against a number of soldiers is currently being considered by the independent Army Prosecuting Authority.
	As the House is well aware, we all take such allegations with the utmost seriousness, and they have to be investigated with scrupulous care. That is the point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is not known at this stage whether the Army Prosecuting Authority intends to bring charges, but if soldiers are to face trial, it will be either in the civilian criminal courts for breaches of English law or by court martial under the Army Acts.